RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Pat Summitt's Will
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/16 8:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
*duplicate*




Last edited by tfan on 09/02/16 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/16 8:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
ArtBest23 wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
myrtle wrote:
It seems perfectly normal that Pat would leave it all to him. Of course he will get to share it with the wife or ex-wife whichever she chooses to be. My guess is he will eventually get another chance at coaching...once he serves out his 'sentence' for wrongdoing. Kinda like the prison system. Depending on the crime, you serve time then you get a second chance. You can debate whether or not his 'sentence' was severe enough (in this case losing his job and being publicly embarrassed and perhaps losing his wife) , but we don't typically execute consenting adults, even when it is between a 'boss' and his subordinate. We do typically find them guilty if the subordinate proves sexual harassment, which should be easy to do in this case...but I haven't heard anything about the woman filing such a case. If one strike and you're out applies, then why is Pokey still coaching?


First sensible comment I've read. Thank you. It seems most folks don't believe in either redemption or forgiveness.....for anything. I hope their houses are all clean as clean. We can all say, well, I've never done THAT, and most of us haven't, but we've all done shit we're not proud of and maybe even could have got in some serious trouble for and didn't. Only one person was ever perfect, and look where it got him!


I think you should definitely write your local school board and tell them to rehire all the gym teachers who have been fired for touching little girls. Maybe you could go door-to-door with a petition. Plainly they deserve forgiveness. Let us know how that goes. Rolling Eyes Laughing Laughing


Tyler wasn't fired for "touching little girls", which is a crime.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11139



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/03/16 10:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I think it's time to stop picking on Tyler Summit. He's a young guy, screwed up badly, and just because he got more opportunities than others because of his mother doesn't mean he should be continually roasted.

We'll see how things play out down the road but for now can we just leave the poor guy alone?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ridor



Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/03/16 2:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I think a lot of people puts schadenfreude on Tyler Summitt primarily because of what he tweeted frequently. He tweeted a lot about his Christian beliefs and yet, did do this? It blew up in his face and remorse? Maybe, maybe not. If this player was not pregnant, would he be remorseful eventually? I don't think so. But that's just me, the city boy in me.
LitePal



Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 10:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Who's picking on Tyler Summitt? The only reason he even got mentioned on these boards is because of Pat's will. People have generally moved on but his hypocrisy and entitlement became part of this thread because of his perceived lack of future coaching prospects and pension payouts.

And I have to say "he's a young guy, screwed up badly" is one of the most annoying arguments.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11139



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
LitePal wrote:
Who's picking on Tyler Summitt? The only reason he even got mentioned on these boards is because of Pat's will. People have generally moved on but his hypocrisy and entitlement became part of this thread because of his perceived lack of future coaching prospects and pension payouts.

And I have to say "he's a young guy, screwed up badly" is one of the most annoying arguments.


Just for the record, I think what he did was horrible and he's a terrible hypocrite. But at some point, enough is enough.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 2:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
The article linked in the OP says that Pat Summitt's will leaves her "tangible personal property" to Tyler. That phrase would typically not be interpreted to include money or financial assets and certainly not any real property (house, land). The article strongly suggests that Pat's financial assets are in a trust she established during her life, because the will instructs the trust to pay all taxes and expenses. It's common for wills to "pour over" any remaining financial assets into the trust upon death.

If that's all accurate, Pat's real property and financial assets will go to the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the trust, paid out by the trustee over whatever time and asset schedule the trust specifies.

Tyler could be a beneficiary or even the only beneficiary of the trust. There's no way to know that, as the trust does not become a public document through the probate process.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 3:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The article linked in the OP says that Pat Summitt's will leaves her "tangible personal property" to Tyler. That phrase would typically not be interpreted to include money or financial assets and certainly not any real property (house, land). The article strongly suggests that Pat's financial assets are in a trust she established during her life, because the will instructs the trust to pay all taxes and expenses. It's common for wills to "pour over" any remaining financial assets into the trust upon death.

If that's all accurate, Pat's real property and financial assets will go to the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the trust, paid out by the trustee over whatever time and asset schedule the trust specifies.

Tyler could be a beneficiary or even the only beneficiary of the trust. There's no way to know that, as the trust does not become a public document through the probate process.


Actually it refers to her revocable living trust, not to a testamentary trust , so it dissolves upon death. But you are correct that the article does not say who the beneficiaries of the financial assets in either her will or her living trust might be. All we are told is that Tyler was the beneficiary of her personal property and will receive the generous survivor benefits of her U of T pension.

Her money could have gone to charity or other individuals for all we know.

I'm waiting for my notice from her executor. Very Happy
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 5:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
A revocable inter vivos ("living") trust does not dissolve upon the death of the grantor, unless it specifically says that death revokes the trust.

Such a dissolution upon the grantor's death would defeat many of the primary purposes of a living trust, which are: to take assets out of the name of the mortal grantor and put the assets legally in the name of near-immortal trustee(s); to allow the grantor all the benefits of the assets while alive, usually as trustee; to avoid probate of the trust assets after death; to manage the assets after death while the beneficiaries may be minors or less than a certain age; to distribute the assets between income beneficiaries and residuary beneficiaries upon fixed or discretionary schedules that the grantor/decedent has chosen; to minimize certain transfer taxes; and to give privacy to post-death beneficiaries and distributions.

A testamentary trust, which is created in a will, can provide the asset management mechanisms after death but it won't avoid probate of the assets, provide privacy, or have gift tax implications.
LitePal



Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
[quote="ClayK"][quote="LitePal"]Who's picking on Tyler Summitt? The only reason he even got mentioned on these boards is because of Pat's will. People have generally moved on but his hypocrisy and entitlement became part of this thread because of his perceived lack of future coaching prospects and pension payouts.

And I have to say "he's a young guy, screwed up badly" is one of the most annoying arguments.[/quote]

Just for the record, I think what he did was horrible and he's a terrible hypocrite. But at some point, enough is enough.[/quote]

Well Clay, why aren't you that sympathetic towards Pokey Chatman? Your own posting history proves that you've been roasting her as late as this year.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11139



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 10:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
The difference for me is that people still champion Pokey Chatman as if she did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees that Tyler Summit stepped over the line but for some reason, there's still this belief that Pokey is an innocent being persecuted for no good reason.

But your point is well taken.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 11:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
ClayK wrote:
The difference for me is that people still champion Pokey Chatman as if she did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees that Tyler Summit stepped over the line but for some reason, there's still this belief that Pokey is an innocent being persecuted for no good reason.


I think the double standard goes even beyond that. Summit's victim is universally viewed as a victim, but it seems that to many Chatman's victim isn't a victim. Both had the same unequal power relationship. Seems to me if one is dismissed as a consenting adult, both should be. If one is viewed as an abusive relationship in which consent is irrelevant or impossible, then both should be.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66898
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 11:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
ClayK wrote:
The difference for me is that people still champion Pokey Chatman as if she did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees that Tyler Summit stepped over the line but for some reason, there's still this belief that Pokey is an innocent being persecuted for no good reason.

But your point is well taken.


Chatman's relationship was with a former player, not one that was playing for her at the time. That's a very different situation from Tyler Summitt. La Tech wouldn't be making a quick settlement if Summitt sued them for wrongful termination the way LSU did with Chatman.



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 11:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The difference for me is that people still champion Pokey Chatman as if she did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees that Tyler Summit stepped over the line but for some reason, there's still this belief that Pokey is an innocent being persecuted for no good reason.

But your point is well taken.


Chatman's relationship was with a former player, not one that was playing for her at the time. That's a very different situation from Tyler Summitt. La Tech wouldn't be making a quick settlement if Summitt sued them for wrongful termination the way LSU did with Chatman.


By most if not all accounts it started while she was a current player and continued while she was a former player.

And you have no idea why the school decided it was cheaper to settle than to litigate, but the merits often have little to do with it. It was a settlement, not a victory or admission or vindication.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
The link below is to a copy of Pat Summitt's will, dated July 18, 2013.

Under Article IV she leaves her "tangible personal property, including automobiles, clothing, jewelry, and other articles of personal use or ornament" to Tyler. Under Article V she pours all the rest of her property into her living trust, which she created in 2006, to be administered by that trust.

The will is public because it has to go through probate; trust isn't because it doesn't.

A litigation possibility: If Tyler doesn't like the contents of this July 2013 will and the pour-over trust provisions, he could try to have the will declared invalid on the grounds of Pat's mental incapacity. This is, unfortunately, a not uncommon occurrence in estate law practice. If Tyler were successful in such a challenge, he would inherit under Tennessee's intestacy laws all of the property Pat owned at her death, including all the property the will pours into the trust under Article V. However, he couldn't get the property that Pat put into the trust prior to her death. The trust would already own that property.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3034247-Pat-Summitt-last-will-and-testament.html
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 3:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
GlennMacGrady wrote:
A litigation possibility: If Tyler doesn't like the contents of this July 2013 will and the pour-over trust provisions, he could try to have the will declared invalid on the grounds of Pat's mental incapacity.

I know very little of such things, but....what is the actual purpose of a "trust", and does it have any beneficiaries? Might Tyler be one of those, or is he automatically precluded from any further benefit of this trust?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11139



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 4:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The difference for me is that people still champion Pokey Chatman as if she did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees that Tyler Summit stepped over the line but for some reason, there's still this belief that Pokey is an innocent being persecuted for no good reason.

But your point is well taken.


Chatman's relationship was with a former player, not one that was playing for her at the time. That's a very different situation from Tyler Summitt. La Tech wouldn't be making a quick settlement if Summitt sued them for wrongful termination the way LSU did with Chatman.


Everything I've heard indicates Chatman had a relationship with at least one player on her roster at the time, and possibly two.

What is the source for it being a former player?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 5:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
A litigation possibility: If Tyler doesn't like the contents of this July 2013 will and the pour-over trust provisions, he could try to have the will declared invalid on the grounds of Pat's mental incapacity.

I know very little of such things, but....what is the actual purpose of a "trust", and does it have any beneficiaries? Might Tyler be one of those, or is he automatically precluded from any further benefit of this trust?


There are many types of trusts used for different purposes. It's as complicated as nuclear physics. Most wealthy people with valuable assets, properties and/or businesses set up one or more different types of trusts during their lifetimes.

The most common type of trust -- the kind PHS has -- is called a living (or inter vivos) trust, because it is set up during the grantor's lifetime. It is an artificial legal entity, like a corporation, that can own and manage property.

The "grantor" is the person who sets up the trust and legally transfers monies, properties, businesses or any other assets into the trust in the name of a "trustee", who manages the assets and income therefrom in accordance with the instructions set up by the grantor in the trust document. During his or her life, the grantor can be the trustee and can revoke the whole trust at any time.

All trusts must have one or more "beneficiaries". During the grantor's life, the grantor usually is the beneficiary. Hence, during the grantor's life, the grantor can have all the benefits of owning and enjoying the assets in the trust, but is not considered the owner of them when he or she dies.

When the grantor dies, the trust becomes irrevocable and the designated successor trustee comes into power. The income from the assets in the trust, and/or the assets themselves, are passed out by the trustee to the beneficiaries in the amounts and at the times specified in the trust document. Tyler could be one of the beneficiaries of Pat's trust or could even be the only beneficiary.

The primary purpose of this kind of living trust is to avoid all those assets passing through a will and having to be subject to the public probate process. Probate for even a modest estate can often take years and can be very costly in court fees, executor fees and attorney fees. With a trust, the trust assets don't go through the legal probate process at all when the grantor dies -- because the grantor didn't own them, the trust did -- and the new trustee can immediately begin managing and distributing the assets without the necessity of a court-appointed executor, court supervision or any court approvals.

The related primary benefit is privacy. The public does not have a right to see the trust document, to know what assets are in the trust, or who the beneficiaries are.

Trusts are used for many other purposes. Does Bill Gates (or any person) want to die and leave valuable property, or his business, outright to minor children? No. So special trusts are often set up for a trustee to manage property for children during their minority or even up to older ages.

Some trusts are set up specially for spouses, for these can avoid all estate taxes using the marital deduction.

There are many other sophisticated trusts that wealthy people use to try to minimize taxes in various ways.

You can Duck Duck Go on "what is the purpose of a living trust".

I can recommend someone to explain these things, for $500 an hour, in greater detail.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 9:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I can recommend someone to explain these things, for $500 an hour, in greater detail.


Thanks, no! I'll *trust* your expertise on Trusts, as I shall never need to know more. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/16 10:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I can recommend someone to explain these things, for $500 an hour, in greater detail.


Thanks, no! I'll *trust* your expertise on Trusts, as I shall never need to know more. Cool


Another way to avoid probate is to put property in joint ownership, such as money in joint bank accounts and real property (land/homes) in joint deed ownership. When one owner dies, the other owner automatically owns all the property without any court proceedings or executors.

The problem with joint ownership is either party can legally take all the money out of a joint bank account and vamoose, and the joint ownership of real property can't be undone unless both joint owners agree to do so. It can be a disaster if relationships unravel.

If you live in a "community property" state such as Texas, all of this passing of property at death stuff gets even more complicated. $500 saved on an attorney during life may easily turn into $5,000+ spent on attorneys by the surviving beneficiaries after death.

Then there's the really ancient law of trusts: Put your $500 in a cookie jar, tell your loved ones where it is, and "trust" them.
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/16 10:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Youth Coach wrote:
bucks4now wrote:
No surprise. Where is Tyler living now?


After the way he torpedoed his career, likely his marriage and put at least a little bit of mud on his mother's career, his likely address is "his own personal hell".


Nobody is immune from events in their life leading to them making decisions that they later regret. Its not as though he committed some unforgivable crime. SMH
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/16 10:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The link below is to a copy of Pat Summitt's will, dated July 18, 2013.

Under Article IV she leaves her "tangible personal property, including automobiles, clothing, jewelry, and other articles of personal use or ornament" to Tyler. Under Article V she pours all the rest of her property into her living trust, which she created in 2006, to be administered by that trust.

The will is public because it has to go through probate; trust isn't because it doesn't.

A litigation possibility: If Tyler doesn't like the contents of this July 2013 will and the pour-over trust provisions, he could try to have the will declared invalid on the grounds of Pat's mental incapacity. This is, unfortunately, a not uncommon occurrence in estate law practice. If Tyler were successful in such a challenge, he would inherit under Tennessee's intestacy laws all of the property Pat owned at her death, including all the property the will pours into the trust under Article V. However, he couldn't get the property that Pat put into the trust prior to her death. The trust would already own that property.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3034247-Pat-Summitt-last-will-and-testament.html


Tyler is likely the sole beneficiary of the Trust, just as he is in the Will. The trust can avoid most estate taxes and be paid out to the beneficiary(ies) at pre determined intervals.
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/16 10:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
ArtBest23 wrote:
dtrain34 wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
bucks4now wrote:
No surprise. Where is Tyler living now?


After the way he torpedoed his career, likely his marriage and put at least a little bit of mud on his mother's career, his likely address is "his own personal hell".


Good thing he inherited what was likely millions then. Confused


I read elsewhere that Pat designated Tyler a non-spousal survivor beneficiary of her Tennessee pension and that he will receive an annuity payment of about $15,000 plus COLA every month for the rest of his life.

Not bad. Will go a long way in East Tennessee.


$15,000/month would go a long way in San Fran or NYC, much less East Tennessee.
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4759



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/07/16 6:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
PlayBally'all wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
bucks4now wrote:
No surprise. Where is Tyler living now?


After the way he torpedoed his career, likely his marriage and put at least a little bit of mud on his mother's career, his likely address is "his own personal hell".


Nobody is immune from events in their life leading to them making decisions that they later regret. Its not as though he committed some unforgivable crime. SMH


Legal system crime no.

Crime against the entire coaching fraternity, yes.
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/09/16 8:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Fighting Artichoke wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
ridor wrote:
Won't surprise me that he's somewhere around Murfreesboro, Tenn - and sooner or later, we will see Rick Insell giving him another chance at coaching by hiring him as assistant coach at MTU or recommend him as coach or something at some local HS girls basketball team. After all, Insell owed Pat his successes ...


Colossally bad idea.


Yeah, he should probably try to coach on the men's side. He obviously cannot be trusted around young women. If he gets involved with HS girls, he could end up in jail.


He had an affair with a player. That isn't a great idea, but it hardly makes him some kind of predator.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin